Bambi II, no more Mr Nice deer

Ok, so this is going to be a short post.

Essentially, one thing I've noticed about animation, both hand drawn and CG, is that the better the budget and quality, the better the actual animation.  I don't mean special effects, I don't mean story, I don't mean film quality.  I'm talking about the more effort the artists put into the movement of the characters.  If you take a look at a low budget cartoon, such as many of the Saturday morning cartoons on TV (going back as far as I can remember), you will see a series of characters with stiff movements, extremely limited movement, or no movement at all.  To put it simply, if you can't afford the quality, you don't get the quality.  Cutting corners is a very popular and well-practiced skill in animation, often leading to misconceptions that all animations are cartoons and for kids.

Now look at a high quality move, like one that Disney makes, or Dreamworks, or even a Don Bluth film.  These have far more actual movement of the characters, and often more interaction with the environment and other characters.  You can see subtly of movement with the characters, sometimes easy to miss, but drawn out none-the-less.  Often, with CG, studios will use Motion Capture to get around having to animate a character with all these subtle movements.  This is in some cases cheating, since Disney and Pixar have proven you don't need Motion Capture to create exceedingly wonderful moving characters.  In fact, I prefer Motion Capture to be limited to movies that are either using a digital character mixed with live action (such as Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, etc.), or realistic CG movies (like Beowulf), and leave it out of traditional animations (such as Tangled, Toy Story, etc.).  You can always use references, Walt Disney has been doing that since Snow White, if not earlier.  It isn't exactly rotoscope, but it is a similar idea.

Why do I bring all this up?  Well, you can often see the quality of an animation just by looking at the way a character moves.  This does not speak at all about the story, the acting, or even the cinematography or any other aspect of the film, but if they have a decent budget, seeing a very well-animated character usually means they put an effort into the movie, and probably also other aspects of it.  Now, granted, the movie could still be bad, it could still be lacking in other areas, but for a visual sense, it has potential.  A specific case in point for me is Bambi II.  I have not seen this movie, and I am not one for sequels for the sake of making a sequel.  However, after looking at a few short clips of Bambi II, my jaw hit the floor.  I was instantly impressed but the subtlety of the movement of the characters.  From the way Thumper's ears flop around to the way the deers slightly bob their heads as they walk, these subtle cues along with an unexpectedly impressive visual appeal (color, lighting, etc) show that Disney put more effort into this sequel than some companies put into their headliners.
Plus it has Patrick freaking Stewart as the Prince of the Forest!

Now since I haven't seen this yet, I cannot give a real review, but I will say this: I am unexpectedly interested in checking out this movie in HD, and seeing for myself just how good the animation quality is, as well as the story and acting.  I hope this is a decent movie, but I will expect it to fall short.  If anyone has any comments or questions, or has seen Bambi II, please leave a message on the board.  Also, if you know if this was actually based on part of the book (which I have never read), could you let me know.  I've been trying to figure out if they made all this stuff up, or if they just filled in where the original movie skipped.

Check out the clips at the link below.  ADIOS!

Bambi II Clips

Hiatus halted

Greetings to everyone who has landed on my humble blog.

Recently, I have been busy with cleaning up my apartment, taking classes in Photography and Drawing, and spending time with family and friends as much as I can.  That isn't to say that I am making an excuse.  I really should just update my blog more often, and therefor I will be making no more excuses, and I will just update my blog.

From here on out, my posts will overall be shorter, but I plan to continue to do movie reviews at least once a week.  I have a lot of things to talk about, and am anxious to get started again!

First I would like to get people used to who I am, and what I think about.

For one, I have a BA in Digital Art at George Mason University, I have a passion for animation and film, and I am currently attending SCAD for animation, and I hope to get an MA.  I like to have and share my opinions with others, and I respect everyone's opinions as long as they are logically sound.  I believe in skepticism and you should investigate things on your own, and not just listen to rumors.  I am often proven wrong about things, and so I admit I am not always right, but I take these opportunities to learn and adapt my opinions.

Animation for me is a pure form of film as art.  Of course I love traditional film, with sequential photographs synchronized to sound, but animation is taking the limitations of photography out of the picture.  With animation, you are only limited by your skill and your imagination.  Granted, budgets are a major part of this as well.  Animation is all about being visually stunning, each and every element of the image being painstakingly crafted, so the overall visual field is a work of pure imagination and talent.

Animation is old, older than photography.  The original attempt at animation date back thousands of years to cave drawings which depicted movement through multiple limbs in different positions.  There has even recently been discovered a bowl in Iran that dates back 5,200 years that uses a form of animation called a zoetrope.  Throughout the ages, people have tried to mimic movement in art, from Phantasmagoria to the Thaumatrope to the Phenakistoscope.  Animation made it's mark in film 1900 with "The Enchanted Drawing", which depicted a man drawing a face, and then interacting with the face and other drawn objects.  6 years later, the same man, J. Stuart Blackton, created the first fully animated film with "Humorous Phases of Funny Faces".  The oldest films date back to the 1880s, meaning that animation has been a part of cinema since the very beginning.

Today, animation is seen as something more for children than adults.  True, there are the few adult animations like Heavy Metal and Fritz the Cat (among others), but the biggest industry for animation not solely aimed for children or families has been the Japanese Anime industry.  Today, you are as likely to find an anime intended for an adult audience with an 18+ rating as you are to find one for a small child.  Despite this, animation still suffers from an identification crisis.  Adults don't watch "cartoons", and anime is for "fanboys" and "perverts".  Luckily, this has not held back the animation industry, although it has had many rough times.  Even Walt Disney himself grew tired of making animations, and focused on live-action films such as 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, Mary Poppins, and Davy Crockett.

For me, I like to explore animation not only for the innocence and whimsy they often portray, but also the art, the technical aspects, and the various themes.  I embrace animations for older audiences, and find joy in truly family films.


I will talk more about all aspects of animation, while I continue on my quest to earn an MA and find my way into the animation industry.
Other topics I will cover include video games (or interactive media/interactive animation), 3d (or stereoscopic), theaters, film, and even IMAX.  If you haven't read it yet, check out my explanation of IMAX using the search bar.

Briefly, I will mention 3D and IMAX, as per requested.  I feel 3D (stereoscopy) has a place in the future.  It has been around since the 1800's as many early photographers wanted to explore depth in their work.  I both like it and dislike it as it stands now.  There are times when 3D is used correctly, and actually can add another element to the visual field, however it has been abused too much and turned into a gimmick.  This of course hurts the reputation of 3D.  When a film is made with a 3D camera, you usually get a decent 3D effect, however it seems that today there are more "3D" movies coming out that are only made 3D in post-production, which is an atrocity and usually is a gimmick to add $5 to your ticket.  3D can cause headaches, eye strain, and can even be bad for children's eyes.  And yet, people still go to movies to see 3D films, and 3D has started to invade homes more than ever.  I suspect it will be here to stay, even if it starts to lose money.  I can only hope they perfect the technology, and stop making 2D films and then converting them into 3D!  Either make your film 2D, or 3D, don't fake it!  I can't blame anyone for getting turned off by 3D, with the massive price tag and gimmick factor it has lately been sporting.

As for IMAX, there is true IMAX format, and then there is IMAX brand name (also known as Digital IMAX).  Now usually the IMAX brand name is at least good quality, large screen, etc.  However, the films that come out in "IMAX" are for the most part not using the IMAX format film, which is a 70mm film format.  Instead, they just show 4k or 2k (equivalent to 35mm) digital film on a large screen, like any other theater will do, and charge you more for it.  While sometimes this is fine, and seeing things on a big screen is always impressive, often it is a waste of money.  If you want to truly see IMAX, then the screen better be a square, not a rectangle.  The IMAX format uses a 1.44:1 ratio, while typical films use 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 ratios.  This means that IMAX format with a true IMAX quality image will be close to the standard television aspect ratio of 4:3 (1.33:1) and not widescreen at all.  To top it off, the size difference of the screens are drastic.  An IMAX brand screen can be any size at all, but they are typically not much larger than a large standard movie theater screen, while a true IMAX format screen can be from 52 feet tall and 72 feet wide to almost 120 feet wide and 100 feet tall!
"But wait, I saw Harry Potter/Batman/Transformers/Superman/Spiderman/etc. in IMAX and heard it was filmed in IMAX."  Sure you did, and the pope wears a thong.  Seriously though, what you usually run into with major films are either IMAX DMR (or "upconverted") films, or partially filmed in IMAX films.  The first is a way to take movies like Apollo 13 and make it look better on a large IMAX screen through a complex upconverting process.  This actually cannot add any more detail to the image when it is on a large IMAX screen, it only makes it not look as bad as it would had it not gone through that process.  As for partially filmed in IMAX movies, usually only 1 or 2 scenes in a film will be made with an IMAX camera, in the IMAX format.  The rest of the movie (about 95% of it) will be with a regular camera and probably upconverted as well.  Any film that is made with only IMAX film will look far more crisp and detailed than the upconverted films, and will always fill an IMAX screen, while the others will not.
So it is my hope that the IMAX format starts to become more prevalent, and more IMAX format theaters open, rather than Digital IMAX.  I enjoy seeing the big screens and seeing big movies on them, and I have never run into a Digital IMAX theater I didn't like, but is it worth the extra money?  Probably not.  It is not as gimmicky as 3D, unless you see a 3D IMAX movie.  However, when it comes to home theaters, which is where most people end up watching movies anyways, IMAX filmed movies will look no better than any other HD movie.

So to sum up:
3D = bad, but with potential, but heading in the wrong direction to get any better anytime soon.
IMAX = be wary of what you are watching and where.
IMAX 3D = hole in your pocket.

Till next time!  ADIOS!